I agree it is time to "promote" ArrowFlightSQL to the same level as other standards in Arrow
Now that it is used widely (we use and count on it too at InfluxData) I agree it makes sense to remove the experimental label from the overall spec. It would make sense to leave experimental / caveats on any places (like extension APIs) that are likely to change Andrew On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 11:39 AM David Li <lidav...@apache.org> wrote: > Yes, I think we can continue marking new features (like the bulk > ingest/session proposals) as experimental but remove it from anything > currently in the spec. > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023, at 11:36, Laurent Goujon wrote: > > I'm the author of the initial pull request which triggered the > discussion. > > I was focusing first on the comment in Maven pom.xml files which show up > in > > Maven Central and other places, and which got some people confused about > > the state of the driver/code. IMHO this would apply to the current > > Flight/Flight SQL protocol and code as it is today. Protocol extensions > > should be still deemed experimental if still in their incubating phase? > > > > Laurent > > > > On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 4:54 PM Micah Kornfield <emkornfi...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> This applies to mostly existing APIs (e.g. recent additions are still > >> experimental)? Or would it apply to everything going forward? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Micah > >> > >> On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 2:25 PM David Li <lidav...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >> > Yes, we'd update the docs, the Protobuf definitions, and anything else > >> > referring to Flight SQL as experimental. > >> > > >> > On Thu, Dec 7, 2023, at 17:14, Joel Lubinitsky wrote: > >> > > The message types defined in FlightSql.proto are all marked > >> experimental > >> > as > >> > > well. Would this include changes to any of those? > >> > > > >> > > On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 16:43 Laurent Goujon > <laur...@dremio.com.invalid > >> > > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > >> we have been using it with Dremio for a while now, and we consider > it > >> > >> stable > >> > >> > >> > >> +1 (not binding) > >> > >> > >> > >> Laurent > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 4:52 PM Matt Topol > >> <m...@voltrondata.com.invalid > >> > > > >> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> > +1, I agree with everyone else > >> > >> > > >> > >> > On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 7:49 PM James Duong > >> > >> > <james.du...@improving.com.invalid> wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > +1 from me. It's used in a good number of databases now. > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg> > >> > >> > > ________________________________ > >> > >> > > From: David Li <lidav...@apache.org> > >> > >> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2023 9:59:54 AM > >> > >> > > To: dev@arrow.apache.org <dev@arrow.apache.org> > >> > >> > > Subject: [DISCUSS] Flight SQL as experimental > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > Flight SQL has been marked 'experimental' since the beginning. > >> Given > >> > >> that > >> > >> > > it's now used by a few systems for a few years now, should we > >> remove > >> > >> this > >> > >> > > qualifier? I don't expect us to be making breaking changes > >> anymore. > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > This came up in a GitHub PR: > >> > >> https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/39040 > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > -David > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > >> >
